2014.05.29, 01:10 AM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FLorida
Posts: 902
|
^ Good advice above. Specially the stress ball lol.
__________________
KO EX-1ur | MR02 Spec 0 | dNano Type 1
|
|
|
2014.05.29, 06:11 AM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfoxCG
Hi, that is great. But, talk about the wrong tool for the task. I would not do a house in inventor. Maybe a chair, or a kitchen cabinet IF it were for CNC. But not a house. All this unless I'm just looking for a "pretty picture"
|
Offcourse the actual plan of the hose is drawn by an achitect
He only wanted to see how the setup would be, how much room he would have in his kitchen, where his sofa and TV could be place.
So basicly the house was a box, and the furniture was moddelled with basic shapes.
|
|
|
2014.05.29, 07:22 PM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FLorida
Posts: 902
|
Architects.. weird breed those.
anyway, in that case what you are said makes more sense.
__________________
KO EX-1ur | MR02 Spec 0 | dNano Type 1
|
|
|
2014.05.29, 09:09 PM
|
#19
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 35,480
|
hey now... not entirely unwarranted but like any professional occupation, it has it's stereotypes.
Last edited by arch2b; 2014.05.29 at 09:11 PM.
|
|
|
2014.05.29, 09:41 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FLorida
Posts: 902
|
I am included in that group. Look at me - in a toy car forum lol. what more proof do I need?
__________________
KO EX-1ur | MR02 Spec 0 | dNano Type 1
|
|
|
2014.05.29, 09:43 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FLorida
Posts: 902
|
BTW, holly cow, you have 31K post. did you never take a break since 2002?
__________________
KO EX-1ur | MR02 Spec 0 | dNano Type 1
|
|
|
2014.05.30, 06:54 AM
|
#22
|
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Goodrich MI
Posts: 6,164
|
Some may have seen a few images posted by me on here, made in AutoCAD, usually R 2000 Solids.
Almost a year ago I acquired a job doing custom 3D CAD/CAM for a jewelry company. Since we do a lot of engagement rings, it is cool to think that the results of my CAD work might remain on someone's finger until they croak, or get divorced.
They use Rhino 3D... so I had to somewhat adapt from AutoCAD to Rhino to work there. I almost gave up the first day because I could not find the "draw line" button! Which is because there is no draw line button in Rhino, all lines are called curves in Rhino, so you just draw a flat curve for a line. In a few days I adapted from AutoCAD Solids to Rhino 3D solids, and was drawing complex ring shapes in no time. After using it a few months, I now like it MORE than AutoCAD. I can even import and somewhat edit STL files, or Meshes, even Boolean edit them with Solids.
Rhino is great for anyone that is use to AutoCAD, as about 80% of the type-in commands for AutoCAD are in Rhino...
I have also used the free version of SketchUp, which I recommend as a first cad system for anyone trying to learn it on their own, it is very simple and crude so it is also very easy to learn, as there is less of it to confuse you. It is also very easy and quick to draw simple square shapes, such as floor plans, but it sucks with curves, as it cannot actually draw them, and instead just draws a bunch of lines to make a curve...
SketchUp is the only affordable CAD system... as it is free.
Rhino can be about $700-$900, student copy cost me about $130-ish.
AutoCAD/AutoCAD Inventor is $900 to $4000
Organized Editing CAD systems with a history of a parts construction, like Inventor and Solid Works are more for engineering parts, when you expect to move the location of holes and ribs and other things within a part often, when there are lots of changes. While this history comes in handy for editing, it can be confusing to learn by newer cad users. I never really got much experience in Inventor or Solid works, but I have had them on my screen long enough to draw a few shapes.
|
|
|
2014.05.30, 08:03 AM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 529
|
Wow! You guys rock! I really appreciate you all for taking the time and energy to reply and share your experiences and advises.
Many many thanks!
|
|
|
2014.05.30, 08:22 AM
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 529
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by byebye
Don't buy a 3D scanner. Trust me you're better off learning to make it from scratch.
Kris
|
Hi Kris,
I'd be interested to hear more from your experience on this topic. I can't say that the thought hasn't crossed my mind, like for example, scanning a 1/24 body and scaling it down to 1/27.5 to create a mold and make a new mini-z body.
I wouldn't necessarily buy a 3D scanner but I'd have it scanned by a specialized company that know what their doing Although, I have no idea yet which company or how much a service like that would cost, anyone knows? I would then have the 3D model printed to produce a prototype, which would then be used later to produce a mold.
|
|
|
2014.06.07, 05:27 AM
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 182
|
I'm also starting to learn to draw 3d on my own, starting with Autodesk 123D to climb the steep learning curve before I move up to more advance softwares such as autocad (I know its totally different). Autodesk 123D is free so its good for experimenting. I'm looking to get a 3D printer down the road to play with, perhaps those micro rc car parts can be realized soon even though the crazed has died down already.
Sad to see rc stuff go out of trend and quiet these days.
|
|
|
2014.06.07, 08:22 PM
|
#26
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stafford, Va
Posts: 6,064
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyoshosan
Hi Kris,
I'd be interested to hear more from your experience on this topic. I can't say that the thought hasn't crossed my mind, like for example, scanning a 1/24 body and scaling it down to 1/27.5 to create a mold and make a new mini-z body.
I wouldn't necessarily buy a 3D scanner but I'd have it scanned by a specialized company that know what their doing Although, I have no idea yet which company or how much a service like that would cost, anyone knows? I would then have the 3D model printed to produce a prototype, which would then be used later to produce a mold.
|
You'd think it would just scan it and spit out an exact image like the movies but unfortunately it doesn't.
I ended up using a program called autodesk123. But more about that in a second.
I bought the makerbot 3d digitizer($800). I had it for a week or so. The results were no where near what I was expecting especially for the price. Long story short to capture the best images the item has to be a flat ivory color and it will not/not capture anything 1:1 perfect including solid clay models. i scanned a white body probably 20 times in a slew of lighting conditions and angles. It just cant get the details like I'd hoped. On top of that it cannot realize any deep holes or cutouts.
So I went back to the makerbot forums and did some more reading and I was directed to this video on youtube. This actually produced the best results. When I dumped it into another program(I don't remember what it was) it may have been autodesk123d it created a 360deg viewable 3d image but when it assigned lines to create the mesh it was extremely uneven and I gave up from there.
Best bet-learn to create your own from scratch then you can 3d print those files.
Kris
|
|
|
2014.06.08, 12:26 AM
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Strasbourg France
Posts: 757
|
I scanned my car using Autodesk 123d Catch.
Bybye, the video you linked shows this method, but they scanned a shoe, and also it was only rendered, not 3d printed.
While a shoe can accept some bumpiness, Mini-z body surfaces must be smooth like a mirror.
Back on my car (WIP), and checking the pictures below. While the small details and proportions were correctly acquired, large surfaces are still bumpy, and no I dont want to paint my car flat grey, even temporary ;-)
Even if they were smooth, the surfaces need polygon re-ordering, something that can only be done by hand (working on one half of the car is sufficient, the other half is only symetric). It takes a long time and test renderings with raking lights to check the surfaces correctness. This step took me 1 to 2 weeks with the Porsche 917, the last car I made (I have around 200 test renderings of the 917 in my folder).
In fact this is complete remodeling, using the photogrammetric scan only as a 3d blueprint while fixing warping and adapting the body to a specific chassis configuration. As the body edges (and almost only them) were correctly acquired using this method, they become the reference lines for the new surfaces.
On the picture, the grey mesh is the untouched scan, the bottom image shows how it was remodeled by arranging and reducing the triangle count (much easier to work with less triangles). BTW I am currently working on the roof and windows, you can still see some untouched triangles there.
It is really important while re-arranging the triangles to slide them along the acquired surface to keep the shape true to original (slide triangle points along surface command). Holes and bumps need surface reconstruction using the edges of the body panels as a guide, sometimes a portion of the car was better acquired on one side and that portion can be made symmetrical.
The close up rendering (this is a 3d rendering and not an actual picture of my bumpy car, and no my car is not "that" bumpy, tank you ;-) shows the amazing level of details 123d Catch can... catch. The blinker for instance will be exactly reproduced and precisely located on the printed model, something that is hard to achieved with scratch modeling almost always leading to accessories placement approximations. This is how a printed 3d model can become incredibly true to scale compared to older methods, in fact it is something like a 3d photography.
Even after it was remodeled, the mesh can't be printed as is.
The body needs an inner surface to give the shell its thickness (I found out 0.8mm is best with the Shapeways nylon, reducing amount of material/cost/weight to its minimum and a sweet spot between strength and elasticity for mini-z bodies, keeping in mind that minimum thickness required at Shapeways is 0.7mm) and lastly the edges joining the inner and outer surfaces must be filled, as the final mesh needs to be watertight to be printable (no hole/not any triangle missing).
Fusing solid objects like the front slot, side clips, details like mirrors and strength ribs whithin the shell is the final step.
About softwares. While Rhinoceros is a very good modeler, it works with vectors (surfaces are lofted using bezier curves). So it is good for design studios where corrections must be made often and mathematical operations are required. Kyosho certainly uses vector modeling both for body and chassis parts design.
But 3D scans and 3d printing both work using polygon meshes (simple meshes of triangles and polygons located in 3 dimensions with point clouds).
Polygon meshes and vector surfaces (Rhino, Catia) just don't mix together.
For instance you can export a vector model made with Rhino (or Catia, etc) to a polygon mesh for printing purpose but you can not do that in reverse (a supposed software making a vector model for Rhino or Catia from a polygon mesh is the holy grail...).
This is what happens when I try to deform a donut using the control points on a mesh vs a vector object. You can clearly see that the left donut is just a bunch of points defining the position of the facets forming the object, while the right donut is a mathematical construction using circles as sections, bezier points, etc.
Entry level 3d print uses polygon (facet) meshes files to work with, this is why I choosed polygon mesh editing/modeling for my prints.
And trust me, if I could scan & print, I would ;-)
Last edited by Fovea3d; 2014.06.08 at 01:05 AM.
|
|
|
2014.06.08, 02:19 AM
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fovea3d
I scanned my car using Autodesk 123d Catch....
|
That actually looks like a great smashed up car
I would print like that
|
|
|
2014.06.08, 06:41 AM
|
#29
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stafford, Va
Posts: 6,064
|
Fovea3d! thanks so much for dropping into this thread. I would go so far as to say you are our resident expert as you have taken this from digital to physical with some great results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fovea3d
I scanned my car using Autodesk 123d Catch.
Bybye, the video you linked shows this method, but they scanned a shoe, and also it was only rendered, not 3d printed.
While a shoe can accept some bumpiness, Mini-z body surfaces must be smooth like a mirror.
Back on my car (WIP), and checking the pictures below. While the small details and proportions were correctly acquired, large surfaces are still bumpy, and no I dont want to paint my car flat grey, even temporary ;-)
Even if they were smooth, the surfaces need polygon re-ordering, something that can only be done by hand (working on one half of the car is sufficient, the other half is only symetric). It takes a long time and test renderings with raking lights to check the surfaces correctness. This step took me 1 to 2 weeks with the Porsche 917, the last car I made (I have around 200 test renderings of the 917 in my folder).
In fact this is complete remodeling, using the photogrammetric scan only as a 3d blueprint while fixing warping and adapting the body to a specific chassis configuration. As the body edges (and almost only them) were correctly acquired using this method, they become the reference lines for the new surfaces.
On the picture, the grey mesh is the untouched scan, the bottom image shows how it was remodeled by arranging and reducing the triangle count (much easier to work with less triangles). BTW I am currently working on the roof and windows, you can still see some untouched triangles there.
It is really important while re-arranging the triangles to slide them along the acquired surface to keep the shape true to original (slide triangle points along surface command). Holes and bumps need surface reconstruction using the edges of the body panels as a guide, sometimes a portion of the car was better acquired on one side and that portion can be made symmetrical.
The close up rendering (this is a 3d rendering and not an actual picture of my bumpy car, and no my car is not "that" bumpy, tank you ;-) shows the amazing level of details 123d Catch can... catch. The blinker for instance will be exactly reproduced and precisely located on the printed model, something that is hard to achieved with scratch modeling almost always leading to accessories placement approximations. This is how a printed 3d model can become incredibly true to scale compared to older methods, in fact it is something like a 3d photography.
Even after it was remodeled, the mesh can't be printed as is.
The body needs an inner surface to give the shell its thickness (I found out 0.8mm is best with the Shapeways nylon, reducing amount of material/cost/weight to its minimum and a sweet spot between strength and elasticity for mini-z bodies, keeping in mind that minimum thickness required at Shapeways is 0.7mm) and lastly the edges joining the inner and outer surfaces must be filled, as the final mesh needs to be watertight to be printable (no hole/not any triangle missing).
Fusing solid objects like the front slot, side clips, details like mirrors and strength ribs whithin the shell is the final step.
About softwares. While Rhinoceros is a very good modeler, it works with vectors (surfaces are lofted using bezier curves). So it is good for design studios where corrections must be made often and mathematical operations are required. Kyosho certainly uses vector modeling both for body and chassis parts design.
But 3D scans and 3d printing both work using polygon meshes (simple meshes of triangles and polygons located in 3 dimensions with point clouds).
Polygon meshes and vector surfaces (Rhino, Catia) just don't mix together.
For instance you can export a vector model made with Rhino (or Catia, etc) to a polygon mesh for printing purpose but you can not do that in reverse (a supposed software making a vector model for Rhino or Catia from a polygon mesh is the holy grail...).
This is what happens when I try to deform a donut using the control points on a mesh vs a vector object. You can clearly see that the left donut is just a bunch of points defining the position of the facets forming the object, while the right donut is a mathematical construction using circles as sections, bezier points, etc.
Entry level 3d print uses polygon (facet) meshes files to work with, this is why I choosed polygon mesh editing/modeling for my prints.
And trust me, if I could scan & print, I would ;-)
|
|
|
|
2014.06.08, 11:52 PM
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draconious
SketchUp is the only affordable CAD system... as it is free.
|
If you are looking for real parametric 3D CAD that is affordable, I would recommend Cubify Design:
http://cubify.com/en/Products/Software
Cubify bought Alibre, and I used Alibre daily at work at one point. Nowadays my tool is SolidWorks and would recommend it too as the user interface is quite intuitive and the help files and myriad of tutorials out there make self paced learning really easy. Only problem as with many software, SW is expensive for individual.
Cubify is not the best tool for freeforming complex shapes, or doing surface modelling. This is not to say that it couldn't be done, just that the tool is not optimized for this.
Modelling a detailed body from scratch is not small project to say the least. I would start with some simpler parts at first to get my head around the logic of parametric modelling.
Rhino etc. visual modelling softwares are great tools for industrial designers for making good looking shapes but these usually have little to do with real mechanical engineering. Of course you can do lots with these too, such as jewelery as stated before. Even the complex shapes such as real car parts are modelled parametrically in the end (usually with Catia). But real a-class surface modelling is not needed in any way to make good looking parts/bodies/whatever at your own computer.
Last edited by quazster; 2014.06.09 at 12:21 AM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 AM.
|
|